Indicator B5: LRE Regional SPR&I Trainings

Objectives Review LRE requirements (IDEA) Review Indicator B5 of the state performance plan (SPP) Discuss changes to the reporting requirements and new targets Review revised worksheet Review appropriate data analysis & strategies for improvement planning Provide resources

IDEA requires States to.... Monitor districts and programs to ensure that LRE requirements are implemented; and 34 CFR § Report to the public about the implementation of LRE in the State. 34 CFR §§ – Review district placements – and IF evidence that district placements are inconsistent with LRE requirements, Review the justification, if any; and Assist in planning and implementing any necessary corrective action. 34 CFR §

In Search of LRE The LRE requirements...express a strong preference, not a mandate, for educating children with disabilities in regular classes alongside their peers without disabilities. Federal Register, Vol. 71, at “ To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities...are educated with children who are nondisabled; 34 CFR § (2)(i)

Continuum of alternatives Each district must ensure that a continuum of alternative placements is available to meet the needs of children with disabilities for special education and related services. 34 CFR § The continuum... must— Include... instruction in regular classes, special classes, special schools, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions; and Make provision for supplementary services (such as resource room or itinerant instruction) to be provided in conjunction with regular class placement.

District Responsibility: Placement Decision & LRE Ensure the placement decision:  Is made by a group of persons, including the parents and other persons knowledgeable about the child, the meaning of the evaluation data and the placement options; and  Is based on the child’s IEP; and  Is determined at least annually  Is made in conformity with... LRE provisions  Is as close as possible to the child’s home  In selecting the LRE, consideration is given to any potential harmful effect on the child or on the quality of services that he or she needs 34 CFR §

IEP Content – Nonparticipation Justification An IEP team must decide, describe and explain specifically and individually, the amount of time a student with disabilities will not participate -  In regular class,  In general & special education, and  In extracurricular activities. 34 CFR (a) and 71 Fed. Reg. at Reminders: Amount or variety of services ≠ automatic removal from regular education environment. Type of disability ≠ automatic removal from regular education environment

Indicator B5: Federal Placement Distribution (LRE) Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21:  A. Removed from regular class less than 21% of the day;  B. Removed from regular class greater than 60% of the day; or  C. Served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound or hospital placements.

Federal Placement Distribution Measurement State TargetState Performance A. Children with IEPs removed from regular class less than 21% of the day. 72.5% or more68.9% B. Children with IEPs removed from regular class greater than 60% of the day. 10.1% or less11.0% C. Children with IEPs served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound and hospital placements. 2.3% or less1.9% B5: Target and performance data for FFY 2006

In fall 2006, OSEP disseminated new directions for IDEA Table 3. Educational Environments and Age Category of Children with disabilities data. These changes significantly impacted Oregon’s placement data and resulted in new baseline data and the need for more appropriate targets. In November 2007, ODE held a stakeholder meeting to identify new targets for FFY Indicator B5: Changes in Reporting

Changes to calculation rules  Students in correctional facilities, private schools and home schools included in categories A, B & C rules  Students in correctional facilities, private schools and home schools are included in separate categories  Reduces the numbers in categories A, B, & C

( ) Revised A. 69.0% of children with IEPs are removed from regular class less than 21% of the day; while ensuring a continuum of placement options is offered to students with disabilities, based on individual need. B. 11.0% of children with IEPs are removed from regular class greater than 60% of the day; while ensuring a continuum of placement options is offered to students with disabilities, based on individual need. C. 2.2% of children with IEPs are served in public or private separate schools, residential placements, or homebound and hospital placements; while ensuring a continuum of placement options is offered to students with disabilities, based on individual need. B5: Revised Targets Due to Reporting Changes National Average: 57.77% National Average: 13.58% National Average: 3.74%

B5: Process Districts missing targets in one or more areas based on data were flagged in SPR&I Flagged districts were not required to submit worksheet due to change in reporting requirements Flagged districts were required to complete improvement plan by October 1

B5: Process Districts missing targets in one or more areas based on data are flagged in SPR&I (79 districts) Flagged districts will need to submit required worksheet by November 28 ODE will review worksheet and either justify districts based on their unique characteristics, or require improvement plan Improvement plans due March 27, 2009

Annual APR Indicator and PCR Cycle July April January October August May March FebruaryDecember November June May 09  Districts continue to submit evidence of correction for and noncompliance  Districts revise rejected improvement plans and CAPs  data populated for B5, 9 & 10 reports Jan. 09  Districts continue submitting PCR data  Districts begin Improvement Plan for B1-2, 3, 5 & 11 based on data (if required)  Districts begin Corrective Action Plans for B4, 9 & 10 based on (if required) April 09  Districts submit evidence of correction for and noncompliance  ODE approves/rejects district improvement plans and CAPs Aug. 08  ODE disseminates Final Determinations Nov. 08  Districts submit evidence of correction for noncompliance until 100% compliant  Worksheets due for B5, 9 & 10 based on data  Policy to practice reviews for B4 (if required)  Districts continue submitting PCR data Dec. 08  Policy to practice reviews for B9 & 10 (if required)  Districts continue submitting PCR data Feb. 09  APR due to OSEP  District PCR data due end of month March 09  CC verify PCR submission  Improvement Plan due end of month for B1-2, 3, 5, & 11 based on data  CAPs due for B4, 9 & 10 (if required)  Districts to verify public report card data Oct. 08  Districts submit evidence of correction for noncompliance until 100% compliant  SPR&I Annual Trainings  ODE populates reports for B1-2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10 & 11 with data  PCR report opens for submission  ODE populates B1-2 report with data June 09  Districts continue to submit evidence of correction for and noncompliance July 08  Districts continue to submit evidence of correction for and noncompliance  ODE working on final determinations including correction of noncompliance September Sept. 08  Districts submit evidence of correction for noncompliance until 100% compliant

B5: Revised Worksheet Revised worksheet for (see handout) Focus on data, specific not general Requires detailed information on shifts in placement numbers and reasons/numbers of students impacted Goal of worksheet is to understand current placement process, continuum of placement options available, and appropriateness of placement settings for students by disability

Improvement Planning Specific areas need to be addressed including:  Team members (should include general and special education)  Data to be used including trend data  Measurable objectives  Specific activities and timeline  Person responsible by activity  Evidence of completion

Revised improvement plan now contains separate text boxes for each content area of the plan. ODE is able to provide feedback and will reject or approve plan once it is submitted. Rejected plans will need to be resubmitted until approved.

Improvement Planning Identify what data is being utilized beyond B5 data  Is data accurate?  Assessment results for students across settings  Disability breakdown by setting  Race/ethnicity breakdown by setting  Drop out by setting What are short and long-term objectives?  Are they measurable?  If so how? Who is responsible for implementation of plan? What measures will be used to know plan is having desired effect?

Handouts Placement and LRE:  Aimed at reducing reporting errors  Contains major considerations and SECC coding directions From IEP to Placement:  For discussion and training purposes  Provides numerous examples of appropriate considerations for IEP development and corresponding reporting requirements for SECC

Practical Impact  Develop the IEP first, based on each child’s unique educational needs.  Describe individual needs in observable and measurable terms rather than placement terms.  Provide professional development to enable decision-making based on quantifiable data rather than opinion.

Practical Impact Watch for practices that may result in allegations of predetermination –  Developing the IEP to fit a placement already selected by staff or parent;  Describing individual student needs in placement terms (needs a resource room)..

OSEP and Predetermination “ The appropriate placement for a particular child with a disability cannot be determined until after decisions have been made about the child's needs and the services that the [district] will provide to meet those needs. These decisions must be made at the IEP meeting, and it would not be permissible first to place the child and then develop the IEP.” 34 CFR Part 300, Appendix A, Notice of Interpretation (1999) “Public agencies must not make placement decisions based on a public agency’s needs or available resources, including budgetary considerations and the ability of the public agency to hire and recruit qualified staff.” Fed. Reg., Vol. 71, (August 2006)

Need help? Find a CoP. In 2003, OSEP instituted an initiative to support communities of practice (CoP), founding the work of the LRE Community of Practice (CoP) for Part B that continues today. IDEA Partnership. (2004). The evolution of communities of practice among the core States of the Title I – IDEA initiative: Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Available online at: ww.ideapartnership.org/report.cfm?reportid=32 ww.ideapartnership.org/report.cfm?reportid=32

A beginning resource list….  U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs’ (OSEP’s) IDEA website – easy to use; everything you need to know  Building the Legacy: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 2004 (National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities) The subject this time? Module 15, LRE Decision Making

A beginning resource list….  WestEd Center for Prevention and Early Intervention – LRE starter kit  arks/Itemid,28/mode,0/catid,116/navstart,0/search,*/ arks/Itemid,28/mode,0/catid,116/navstart,0/search,*/ Regional Resource and Federal Center Network - Improvement Strategies and Evidence-Based Practice  edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/ htm edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/ htm  Federal Register, August 14, 2006 – IDEA regulations  ODE Special Education Policies and Procedures